The Wennink Report: an economic wake-up call, a political litmus test

The recent report by former ASML CEO Peter Wennink on the future earning capacity of the Netherlands is one of the most compelling economic wake-up calls of recent years. Its message is clear: the Netherlands still has the ingredients to remain prosperous, innovative and strategically relevant, but the foundations are eroding. Without intervention, decline is a real risk.

The report was written at the request of the outgoing cabinet and translates the insights from the European Draghi report to the Dutch context. The publication comes at a crucial moment in the formation and preparation of the next coalition agreement and thus forms a building block to which political stakeholders must relate. In this blog, we discuss what the report entails, he political choices it implies, and where opportunities lie for advocacy and stakeholder engagement.

A sharp analysis with concrete avenues for action

The strength of the report lies in its clarity and broad evidential base. Wennink combines economic data and international comparisons with input from an advisory group representing business, the financial sector, knowledge institutions and government. This breadth of involvement strengthens both the credibility of the analysis and its relevance beyond the moment of publication.

Against that backdrop, Wennink sets out what he believes is required. The Netherlands must achieve structural growth of at least 1.5 per cent per year, almost entirely driven by productivity gains. To do so, additional investments of €151-187 billion are needed up to 2035, largely from private sources. These investments should be concentrated in four domains: digitalisation and AI; security and resilience; energy and climate technologies; and life sciences and biotechnology.

Equally important is the report’s unambiguous diagnosis of what is currently holding investment back. Slow and uncertain permitting procedures, the so-called Dutch “nitrogen lock” (restrictions linked to nitrogen emissions), congestion on the electricity grid, high energy prices, labour shortages and pressure on physical and digital infrastructure are just some of the structural barriers undermining investors’ willingness to commit. The report is crystal clear: as long as these framework conditions are not resolved, plans will remain on paper.

At the same time, the report offers a concrete action perspective through a set of worked-out investment projects and a proposed timeline. These proposals are intended as direction-setting rather than exhaustive. That leaves room to put additional projects on the agenda and to position other interests that are currently less visible.

A wealth of political choices

While Wennink makes clear what is economically rational, he largely leaves the societal trade-offs open. Issues such as wellbeing, public health, the living environment, distributional effects and public support receive relatively limited attention. This is reflected in some of the choices the report puts forward, such as providing strong, long-term prospects for the Port of Rotterdam and for Schiphol Airport, or further growth of data centres. These choices are defensible from an economic perspective, but they demand a broader societal debate: which interests ultimately take precedence, who is given priority, and how to ensure that economic growth genuinely contributes to broad-based prosperity and societal legitimacy.

The fact that environmental organisations and trade unions were not represented in the advisory group underlines the character of the report. At the same time, this is understandable: it does not claim to be a fully fledged policy programme, but rather to chart a clear and coherent economic plan. The societal balancing of interests and the building of public support are ultimately the responsibility of politics, with room for stakeholder input.

The report also places a political choice on the table with regard to public finances. Wennink argues that long-term investments are structurally undervalued in the current budgetary framework: costs are immediate and visible, while benefits accrue later and are therefore insufficiently weighed. This reinforces a preference for short-term purchasing power measures over investments in productivity, innovation and prevention. In a country such as the Netherlands, known for its fiscal frugality and strong emphasis on budgetary discipline, this bias is politically easy to explain. Tangible results within a single parliamentary term tend to carry more weight than returns that will only materialise under a subsequent government. Long-term investments with diffuse or delayed benefits therefore struggle to compete with measures that deliver quick, visible gains. Added to this is the reality that substantial resources will need to be redirected towards defence and security in the coming years, further increasing pressure on the public finances and sharpening the trade-off between short- and long-term priorities.

This is where coalition negotiations may become particularly interesting. The VVD (conservative-liberals) tends to emphasise strict budgetary rules, while parties such as D66 (liberal-democrats) and the CDA (christian democratic party) appear more open to treating productive investments differently from day-to-day consumption spending.

Responsibility does not rest solely with the next cabinet, but also with the Dutch Parliament. Wennink’s agenda requires coherence and a long-term horizon, whereas recent debates have often been dominated by ad hoc solutions. Anyone seeking to translate the report into real-world impact will need to be willing to look beyond familiar trenches. That also creates space for influence: by linking concrete proposals to broader societal goals as well as to party-specific priorities, and by building stable majorities, including across traditional party lines.

Ambitious and coherent, but demanding in governance terms

The report is exceptionally ambitious. Implicitly, it assumes that the Netherlands can break through several entrenched blockages in a relatively short period of time, even though these very dossiers have long been stuck due to political trade-offs, legal complexity, fragmented governance and practical constraints such as staff shortages. The question is how realistic it is to deliver everything simultaneously and in a coherent manner. This requires not just funding, but consistent choices, political will and discipline, and sustained focus across multiple electoral cycles. That is precisely where Dutch governance has struggled in recent years. Companies and knowledge institutions can manage risk, but tend to disengage when confronted with constant policy shifts and priorities that change with every election.

Seen in that light, Wennink’s governance proposals are understandable. For example, he argues that safeguarding future earning capacity should be treated as a “chef’s matter”: owned by the prime minister, supported by an independent Commissioner for Future Prosperity, a ministerial committee and a national investment council. He also proposes that the Minister of Economic Affairs should regain a coordinating role over energy and trade. From an economic perspective, this enforces focus and coherence and elevates earning capacity to a top, cross-government priority.

Politically and administratively, however, this is far from straightforward. The prime minister’s portfolio has already expanded significantly in recent years, particularly in relation to European affairs and international coordination, while economic performance traditionally sits with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Finance plays a central role through budgetary control and investment space. Political parties and future ministers will not relinquish these positions lightly. Moreover, the current division of portfolios is not arbitrary: energy, trade and the economy are partly separated to safeguard other objectives, such as climate targets, human rights and international commitments.

The question, then, is whether creating new structures at the top automatically increases effectiveness. Breaking down the “siloed” nature of ministries, as Wennink describes it, may equally require sharper mandates and greater decisiveness within existing structures, combined with closer interdepartmental coordination. Ultimately, it is not only about who leads the dossier, but also about how cooperation is enforced and bureaucratic rivalry curtailed.

From report to political action

In the months ahead, the key issue will be whether Wennink’s wake-up call is translated into concrete choices, priorities and measures. Will it result in coherent policy and real breakthroughs on framework conditions, or will the Netherlands remain mired in fragmentation while prosperity erodes?

In The Hague, the political process is only just beginning. A plenary debate has been requested, several committee debates are scheduled, coalition talks are ongoing and the contours of a new cabinet are not yet fixed. Within the House of Representatives, new spokespersons are still building their dossiers and defining their positions. In parallel, once a new cabinet is formed, its ministers will set out priorities and decision-making structures. These are key-moments at which stakeholders can contribute to meaningful progress.

For organisations and businesses, this is therefore a decisive phase. Those seeking to anchor their interests will need to demonstrate convincingly why they matter: not only in economic terms, but also in terms of feasibility and social legitimacy. The enabling conditions are not merely technical or financial; they are explicitly political and societal. It is precisely at this intersection that effective advocacy can make the difference.